Equitable relief is subject to the principle of coming to the Court with clean hands, but the nature of the alleged offences and the personal circumstances of the petitioner can be considered in imposing conditions for relief.

1. On the complaint lodged by one Arul Kannan, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.172 of 2014 and after completing the investigation, have filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.184 of 2014 before District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Orathanadu under Sections 294(b), 323 and 325 I.P.C. against Kirubakaran/A1, Suman/A2, Arivu Perumal/A3 and Nageswaran/A4.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 29.08.2014 around 8.00 p.m., when the defacto complainant and his friend went to the river for immersing the Vinayagar Idols, the accused attacked them, abused them and caused injuries to them. It appears that after the Court took cognizance of the offences and issued process for the appearance of the accused, Arivuperumal did not appear before the Trial Court and therefore non-bailable warrant was issued for securing his presence on 20.05.2016. On 10.10.2017 Arivuperumal surrendered before the trial Court and prayed for recalling the non-bailable warrant. The Trial Judge accepted the surrender, however, directed the petitioner to deposit his passport in order to ensure that he does not abscond. It is a fact that on account of the non-appearance of the petitioner, the Trial Court was not able to proceed with the trial. The petitioner accordingly, deposited his passport before the Trial Court and the non-bailable warrant was also recalled. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Cr.M.P. No.3456 of 2017 in C.C.No.184 of 2014 for return of his passport under Section 451 Cr.P.C. In the affidavit sworn to by the petitioner, he has stated that he needs the passport for getting passports for his wife and child. The Trial Court by the impugned order dated 22.12.2017, dismissed the petition and refused to return the passport to the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

3. Heard Mr.P.Kandasamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.S.Bharathi, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an Indian citizen and he is holder of Indian Passport bearing No.P.6314206, but was issued at Singapore, since the petitioner has been working at Singapore for the last 10 years. Learned counsel further submitted that the Re-Entry Permit to enter Singapore expires on 10.04.2018 and therefore, the petitioner has to necessarily go to Singapore for the Re-Entry Permit, failing which the petitioner will not only loose his job but will also loose the Permanent Resident status in Singapore.

5. When this Court posed a question to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to why the petitioner did not disclose all these facts in the affidavit filed before the trial Court and had instead stated that the passport is required for obtaining passports for his wife and child, learned counsel candidly conceded the mistake and sought condonation.

6. As directed by this Court, the petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 12.02.2018, wherein in paragraph No.4, he has stated that he unconditionally apologizes for having given wrong particulars before the trial Court in his petition under Section 451 Cr.P.C.

7. In the opinion of this Court, for having given such wrong particulars itself, the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief because one who seeks relief in equity has to come to the Court with clean hands. On this ground alone, the Criminal Revision Case requires to be dismissed. However, this Court does not want to take the extreme step for the reason that the allegations made against the petitioner is for minor offences, which had occurred during the immersion of Vinayagar Idols in the river.

8. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submits that there are no other previous case against the petitioner. She also submitted that the trial in this case could not be proceeded because of the abscondence of the petitioner and Nageswaran/A4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) furthe